Is the check of zlib version essential?
I googled a fix that remove zlib version in gentoo.
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/dev-tex/luatex/files/remove-zlib-version-check.patch?view=diff&r1=text&tr1=1.1&r2=text&tr2=1.1&diff_format=s
However, according to the zlib changel
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 23 18:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On May 23 10:14, Satish Balay wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > - It appears to be related to the huge length of one of the commands - and
> > > length of PATH
> > > - I tried it on 3 different machines [with di
On May 23 18:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 23 10:14, Satish Balay wrote:
> > [...]
> > - It appears to be related to the huge length of one of the commands - and
> > length of PATH
> > - I tried it on 3 different machines [with differences in default installed
> > software]
> > win200
On 02.05.2013 10:05, Sebastian Schuberth wrote:
here's a small patch against the rebase 4.4.0-1 package to the rebaseall / peflagsall
scripts that avoid talking about "cygwin" when running under MSYS / MinGW to
not confuse the user.
Any comments on the patch?
--
Sebastian Schuberth
--
Prob
On 5/23/2013 2:01 PM, Arthur Tu wrote:
Sorry.
I did send a confirm message to the list on 5.8 and my thunderbird
cached that message. I don't understand why it's not in the list.
The latest version of zlib in the "current" label, is 1.2.8.1. However,
lualatex used some component compiled with z
Sorry.
I did send a confirm message to the list on 5.8 and my thunderbird
cached that message. I don't understand why it's not in the list.
The latest version of zlib in the "current" label, is 1.2.8.1. However,
lualatex used some component compiled with zlib ver1.2.7.1, so I have to
reverte
There appears to be some inconsistency regarding the version of boost:
For the 'boost' package itself, 1.53.0 is current, with 1.50.0 marked as
previous.
For other boost libraries (i.e. 'libboost-devel',
'libboost_python-devel', 'libboost_python3-devel') 1.50.0 is current
with 1.53.0 marked
On 5/23/2013 11:14 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On May 23 10:46, Robert Pendell wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Corinna Vinschen <> wrote:
On May 22 23:10, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
On 5/22/2013 11:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On May 22 10:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
So, maybe *
On May 23 10:14, Satish Balay wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm seeing the following behavior with make, PATH on cygwin. Google
> brought up a related post [with PATH and same error]
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.cygwin/137168 with reference to
> http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#BLODA as the issue - but I do
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Satish Balay wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm seeing the following behavior with make, PATH on cygwin. Google
> brought up a related post [with PATH and same error]
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.cygwin/137168 with reference to
> http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#BLODA as the issue - but
On May 23 10:46, Robert Pendell wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Corinna Vinschen <> wrote:
> >
> > On May 22 23:10, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> > > On 5/22/2013 11:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > >On May 22 10:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > > >>So, maybe *next* Thursday then?
> >
On May 23 11:03, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:29:28PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On May 23 13:58, Ralf Glaser, track IT wrote:
> >> Corinna,
> >>
> >> when i replace the original cygwin DLL (which was installed with
> >> cygwin-1.7.17) with the snapshot from 2012-1
On 5/22/2013 10:04 PM, Arthur Tu wrote:
I have confirmed that bug was fixed, and reported that to the list earlier.
I never saw that report, and I can't find it in the list archives. Did
it say something about a zlib problem? I'm confused by your most recent
message in which you say you had
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:29:28PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On May 23 13:58, Ralf Glaser, track IT wrote:
>> Corinna,
>>
>> when i replace the original cygwin DLL (which was installed with
>> cygwin-1.7.17) with the snapshot from 2012-11-23 the problem is
>> already there.
>> Maybe just rep
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Corinna Vinschen <> wrote:
>
> On May 22 23:10, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> > On 5/22/2013 11:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >On May 22 10:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >>On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:47:11AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >>>On May 21 21:
On May 23 13:58, Ralf Glaser, track IT wrote:
> Corinna,
>
> when i replace the original cygwin DLL (which was installed with
> cygwin-1.7.17) with the snapshot from 2012-11-23 the problem is
> already there.
> Maybe just replacing the DLL is not what you had in mind?
That was all, yes. Did you
Corinna,
when i replace the original cygwin DLL (which was installed with
cygwin-1.7.17) with the snapshot from 2012-11-23 the problem is already
there.
Maybe just replacing the DLL is not what you had in mind?
I've noticed something else:
I've copied the executable from /cygdrive/c/Tools/Cpp
On May 23 11:12, Ralf Glaser, track IT wrote:
> Since last cygwin update executables generated by the unit testing
> framework CppUTest hang on execution. Same behaviour for CppUTest
> V2.3 and V3.4.
>
> Downgrading base->cygwin from 1.18.1 to 1.17.1 fixes the problem.
Any chance you could try to
On May 22 23:10, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 11:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On May 22 10:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:47:11AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>On May 21 21:43, Balaji Venkataraman wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Ba
19 matches
Mail list logo
